On 07/19/2013 07:38 AM, Eduardo Valentin wrote: > On 18-07-2013 17:11, Guenter Roeck wrote: >> On Thu, Jul 18, 2013 at 09:53:05AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin >> wrote: >>> Hello Guenter, >>> >>> On 17-07-2013 18:09, Guenter Roeck wrote: >>>> On Wed, Jul 17, 2013 at 11:17:19AM -0400, Eduardo Valentin >>>> wrote: >>>>> Hello all, >>>>> >>>>> As you noticed, I am working in a way to represent thermal >>>>> data using device tree [1]. Essentially, this should be a >>>>> way to say what to do with a sensor and how to associate >>>>> (cooling) actions with it. >>>>> >>>> Seems to me that goes way beyond the supposed scope of >>>> devicetree data. Devicetree data is supposed to describe >>>> hardware, not its configuration or use. This is clearly a use >>>> case. >>> >>> Thanks for rising your voice here. It is important to know what >>> hwmon ppl think about this. >>> >> Sorry, I don't know what ppl stands for. >> >>>> >>>> Guenter >>> >>> As your answers to the series are giving same argument, I chose >>> to answer on patch 0. I would be happier if you could elaborate >>> a bit more on your concern, specially if you take hwmon cap >>> here, and give your view with that perspective. >>> >>> I also considered that this work could be abusing of DT >>> purposes. But let me explain why I still think it makes sense >>> to have it. >>> >> Ultimately, you are making my point here. If you considered it, >> did you ask devicetree experts for an opinion ? Did you discuss >> the subject on the devicetree-discuss mailing list ? If so, what >> was the result ? > > Although I have asked, I didn't get any feedback. > https://lkml.org/lkml/2013/4/11/760 > > But now I am requesting feedback in a formal (patch) way. > > Consider this patch series as official request for (devicetree > experts and everyone involved) opinions. I might suggest (a) sending the email "To" the DT maintainer, rather than just CC'ing him, (b) perhaps start a new thread just to present the proposed DT binding, and get feedback on that. A thread with a new subject like "[RFC] DT binding for thermal zones" might get more attention than a patch submission; the subject line of this patch doesn't stand much (since it implies to me it's more about build issues than DT bindings even though it does mention DT). _______________________________________________ lm-sensors mailing list lm-sensors@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.lm-sensors.org/mailman/listinfo/lm-sensors
